flamming_python wrote:Russia will lose a lot of men by trying to rush things.
Nobody said anything about rushing, Putin's already stated what will happen if NATO approves of strikes on Russia and the Ukraine will lose more territory because of it. That won't require a mad dash to the Dnieper but the same systemic bombing campaign that's currently processing over 1000 Ukroaches per day into mulch and fertilizer.
The NATO missile threat against Russia will only grow in time and missiles with greater ranges will be supplied once Russia fails to give an adequate response to their use. The ATACMS is only the beginning.
The longer the range of missiles NATO supplies, the smaller the Ukraine gets.
They'll give them whatever is necessary to launch them, or analogous missiles, if neccessary modifying them to be launched from a less expensive asset, or they will attempt to extend the range of other missiles such as the same ATACMS.
Do you wonder
why NATO keeps having to give longer and longer ranged missiles to the Ukraine in the first place? Is it because the Ukraine is winning?
Israel has a bunch of short range ballistic missile systems, so does South Korea, and those can be given to the Ukraine too and targeted, launched with the help of NATO personnel and NATO intelligence.
You know what else can be given? Iskanders to Iran and North Korea to massively upgrade their ballistic missile arsenal, which would be an absolute nightmare for both Israel and South Korea.
But more dangerous are cruise missiles assuming the launch platforms are provided. F-16s might be able to launch some of them.
F-16's need smooth runways completely cleared of debris to take off from... good luck finding one of those in the Ukraine.
If you allow them to keep launching them at will, they will eventually find weak spots.
Well lucky for NATO, Russia hasn't been shooting down any Ukrainian aircraft or missiles nor upgrading their air defenses as of late. I guess Russia finally ran out of weapons?
By allowing them to strike Russian territory with no direct repurcusions?
Again, by your schedule, yes?
There is as yet nothing to retaliate against, I am opining as to Russia's options for when these attacks come as it appears now that they will and soon
So your latest outburst isn't based on something that's actually happened but something you've imagined in your mind?
You don't live in Russia and are not subject to military mobilization
I didn't know I needed to be Russian to have an opinion on the SMO, thanks for reminding me.
it's not your place to say what my reaction should or shouldn't be.
You're free to react however you want to but don't expect people to not respond to your reaction
on a public forum.
Above all I want the situation to de-escalate and for the war to be contained
... and what the hell do you think Russia's been doing this whole time?
That will all be interpreted by the enemy as a sign of supreme weakness.
How has that worked out for NATO so far? Dedollarization, Decolonization in Africa, the EU in recession, Russia's footprint expanding geopolitically as opposed to isolation, 5th column rats demoralized after thinking they had friends in the west, 6th column crybabies mostly silenced (except on russiadefence.net), Russian economy booming after the
sanctions from hell, Russia's military potential growing exponentially on a shoestring budget.
And if it proves instead that war is inevitable, then the war was always going to be inevitable,
Is it, though? Most of your whining the last page and a half has been assumptions, conjecture and imagination.
Might as well address a few more comments made since this post.
sepheronx wrote:OK, so you are in charge.
Who would you strike first. What would be your response exactly?
flamming_python wrote:announce another round of partial mobilization.
600,000+ men are already serving in the SMO, only half of that fighting force is deployed to the front at any one time. All of the freshly mobilized will need at least 6 months of training, and lets not forget about the economic impact this will have on Russia, not that you seem to care at all.
And then have the 'Ukrainian' army carry out some demonstrative strikes on NATO supply bases on Polish or Romanian territory adjacent to that of the Ukraine.
Who's to say the Ukrainians haven't already done that? How many are employed throughout Poland alone? How many of them are Russian informants? How many are willing to "accidentally" set a factory on fire for a few million rubles? How many non-Russians/Ukrainians are willing to commit sabotage acts against NATO with the 10's of millions of illegal immigrants they've imported into their countries?
Well, it seems consensus around here is for Russia to go to war with NATO.
Yes, the "rational" people here who see Russia kicking the Ukraine's ass and neutralizing everything that NATO could muster are worried about new
Wunderwaffe being gifted to the Ukraine so they want Russia to kickstart a nuclear war to show them who's boss. LOL!
But it is my country and I say that we must be ready for war
You're panicking over Wunderwaffe Tomahawk missiles that the Ukraine doesn't have and want Putin to preemptively start WW3 against NATO (which NATO literally wants).
Putin at the start of the conflict said that "if you see that a fight is unavoidable, so then strike first". I'm not advocating striking first, but I am advocating hitting back at least. No way around it.
You're advocating striking first, in retaliation for a weapon the Ukraine doesn't have
Even the biggest FABs don't look very big in this region when you zoom out.
Zoom out far enough and Earth looks like a tiny speck, doesn't make the FAB-3000's any less devastating against Ukrainian positions.
If Nato is going to cross the red line and deploy troops to Ukraine , Russia might as well break out the tactical nukes. Tactically nuke assemblies of NATO troops when they come.
Kinzhals will get the job done just as well, while denying a desperate NATO any precedents to follow.
Select one Ukrainian city and turn it into a sea of fire (using conventional/ thermobaric weapons).
Ah yes, Dresden the Ukrainians. That's exactly how the US won the war in Vietnam... right?
That's why all these arguments about how 'Russia is winning the war' and just needs to 'stay the course' are doomed.
Oh God, until today I almost forgot about the Doomers. Thanks for reminding us that Russia is doomed (yet again).
You've just bought into the nuclear boogeyman too much. Its all mostly BS. Go to Chernobyl. Nature took over 20 years ago.
Move in there then get back to us in 5 years, if you last that long.
The only thing you can do is carry on the denazification and demilitarization on your terms, without being provoked into rushing it.
Yes, lets ignore the fact that's Russia is
currently doing the very thing you're suggesting them to do and have done so since February 2022.
I don't normally do these Garry-type replies but, tonight clearly warranted it. Chickenshit doomer season is back guys and nothing less than nuclear war will suffice! Also, Putin is f*cking up again and needs to be replaced with a psychopath like this;
I have a simple solution that I have been suggesting since the first year of the SMO. Select one Ukrainian city and turn it into a sea of fire (using conventional/ thermobaric weapons). Let this be a reminder not to cross Russia's red lines. If NATO continues with its behavior, then a second city will be decimated, and then a third, continue the process until everyone is dead in Ukraine. I don't care if civilian casualties are in the millions. This is a message that sooner or later London, Paris, Berlin, Washington DC. will be the next to be decimated (this time, with nukes).